Home Forums Let’s Talk Photography Using other photographer's work to promote your business

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9099
    IHF
    Participant

    Here’s a link to a “story” I was following and got kind of involved in today.

    http://thelittlesleuth.blogspot.com/2013/04/felicity-christopher-photography-orange.html

    I dont think we have ever discussed this before here at YANAP (sorry if I missed it), but it’s obviously a big problem these days.  What are your thoughts, feelings on this?  How do you feel about photographers using paid for, stock imagery?  If the stock photos are used to promote your photography services, is that not infringement as well, unless full out clean and clear copyright was bought? Do you have any similar stories you would like to share?  Have YOU yourself ever had images stolen, misused, or infringed in any way?

    #9102
    cameraclicker
    Participant

    There are stock sites that charge for images and, apparently, stock sites that offer free images.  Stock sites offer their images to advertisers for use in advertising, that’s why they demand model releases.  On that basis it is probably perfectly legal to use a collection of stock images to advertise your photography company.  At the same time it may be fraudulent to use stock images to advertise your photography business.  It is certainly morally corrupt.  It strikes me as false advertising to show someone else’s photos as examples of what potential customers can expect.

    That web page alleges the photos used by those they are exposing were taken from the actual photographer’s web pages, or from advertisements and generally were not even from a stock agency, and at least one photo had the copyright notice removed.

    There is a photographer in California that writes books.  The introduction talks about his 20 years of photography experience and has a section saying the whole document is copyrighted.  The books are basic but mostly accurate and have photos to support the text.  In a couple of cases the text says he didn’t take the photo so he does not know for certain how lights were set up.  I started to become suspicious when he identified a photo of the Canadian House of Commons as a picture of a castle.   There was a wedding photo which had a watermark at the bottom.  I did a Google search and found the photographer, who had no idea her photo was in the book.  I don’t know what action she took, but she confirmed she had not provided permission to anyone to use her photo.  I did a search on a number of other images and found several were from stock sites that offer images for free.  Some images could not be located by search tools.  I am left wondering why a photographer would not simply shoot the images needed for a book the photographer was working on.

     

    #9121
    IHF
    Participant

    Wow Cameraclicker!  That takes some serious cahoonas  (lol I have no idea how to spell that)

    “I am left wondering why a photographer would not simply shoot the images needed for a book the photographer was working on”.

    I think this comes from a total lack of understanding and only a lay person could think, a photo is a photo is a photo.  I think possibly the text was most likely “found” somewhere and copied, maybe words were slightly changed.  I mean look at me for an example, I’m just learning and soaking up as much as I can.  How many of me are out there, that do the same, but don’t try to implement what they learned, or are unable to achieve certain shots skill set wise?  Knowing how, and actually being able to accomplish certain shots, are 2 totally different things. (Grrrrrrrrr! If only lol) But I think even my teen who has no interest, could find images as examples of different technics and/or descriptions.   I would never write a book or tutorial based on what I currently know, but a person that doesn’t think like a photographer, and lacks that understanding certainly might think they could.  Not saying it’s right in any way, just saying the person who wrote the book is obviously not a photographer.

    #9149
    fstopper89
    Participant

    OMG I am in shock! That lady is the fraud-est of frauds! Her actual work that is posted on her Facebook is so terrible, yet she had all these beautiful wedding images posted all over the place. She obviously doesn’t spend any time actually photographing, as she’s spending all of it copying, pasting on new watermarks, and maintaining her 23 different websites/blogs/pages/etc. of lies. My head hurts.

    #9150
    IHF
    Participant

    What’s really scary Browneyed, (dont know if you read through all the comments) is that she says the slueth page is currently getting investigated by the FBI By her doing.  People this delusional, seriously scare me.  It’s like she built a fantasy world for herself.  Hopefully her family and friends actually help her, instead of letting her continue on as she has been, but it’s doubtful. Instead, I think they may be fueling it.  She also goes by three completely different names.  Melissa, felicity, and Bella

    What started out as just a common run of the mill thievery situation has turned into concern for her mental health.

    Ive been baffled by it

    #9155
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Yeah I agree. I read through some of the comments. People like that have far more serious issues. WTG for the Photography Sleuth for calling her out publicly. That stuff makes me so angry. I don’t even know how a person can be “proud” of work that they never even did. And for what? To show clients that they can get photos that nice, so they pay big bucks, and then get work that looks like a 4th grader did it and sue her? How does she sleep at night? She says people are slandering her name, yet she’s the one who puts her phone number, email, name etc. out there publicly. If she wants to start over on a clean slate, she should delete her entire online presence (might be a lot of work) and start clean. New email, phone number, everything! I would publicly oust a photography thief as well! I think people should call her phone and give her a piece of their mind.

    #9372
    stef
    Participant

    “There is a photographer in California that writes books.  The introduction talks about his 20 years of photography experience and has a section saying the whole document is copyrighted.  The books are basic but mostly accurate and have photos to support the text.  In a couple of cases the text says he didn’t take the photo so he does not know for certain how lights were set up.  I started to become suspicious when he identified a photo of the Canadian House of Commons as a picture of a castle.   There was a wedding photo which had a watermark at the bottom.  I did a Google search and found the photographer, who had no idea her photo was in the book.”

    That doesn’t always mean it was not used legally.

    There’s a misunderstanding propagated heavily by advertising and lobbying driven primarily by the recording industry.

    Many types of copying someone else’s work is illegal. Many types are not illegal.

     

    Examples:

    Some people think that copying but giving credit or linking makes it legal. It does not.

    Some people think that any copying is illegal. It is not.

    Some people think they can control all use of their image (face) or creations (art) in all contexts. They cannot.

     

    Using an example of someone’s work to explain a concept might be perfectly legal, even in a book you’re selling. The whole idea of copyright is to protect the owner to allow him to capitalize on the work publicly, spawning growth of creativity. This creativity is also spawned by allowing commentary and education to build on other works as examples, which is protected by law. The recording industry, and many fauxtographers themselves, try to promote that any use of anyone else’s image is illegal and imagine all sorts of harm that was done, esp when they’ve never even sold an image in the past.

    If any such copying weren’t legal Fair Use, this site would be offline and the owners in court.

    #9375
    cameraclicker
    Participant

    Stef, I use (and probably abuse) Fair Use as much as anyone.  In Canada, but not in the US, Fair Use requires giving credit and/or providing a link back to the original depending on circumstances.  In Canada and the US copyright law is similar but not the same.  The photographer author is in the US so presumably those rules apply.

    I read case law that involved a photo of a minor which was in a book and on the cover.  The outcome was that the photo on the cover required a model release but the photo in the book did not.  Apparently the book’s cover was deemed to be advertising, and the photo inside was simply a photo taken by the author.  This differs in that the photo with the watermark was taken by a professional wedding photographer and used without permission, or even knowledge of that photographer, in a publication which claims copyright over the entire contents of that publication — which would lead me to believe the author owned copyright or had permission of the copyright holder to include work.    Additionally, the photo in one publication simply appears in the middle of a wedding shot list with no reference to the actual photo.  In the second publication, the text around the same photo discusses “finding the story” but it does not directly address any part of the photo.

    The US rule is:
    17 U.S.C. § 107

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    The section above was lifted from Wikipedia, but they got it from the legislation.

     

    So, the photo appears in a book which is retailed on Amazon for $8.95 and while the book is instructional, any photo or any wedding photo (depending on which book) could be used to replace that photo without changing text or any information conveyed; it was a wedding photo from a photographer’s blog; the whole photo complete with watermark was used; the effect on the market is difficult to call since the photo was of someone’s wedding and the photographer had already provided the photo in their own blog.

     

    I think it would clearly be fair use if the author had presented the photo and then gone on to discuss how the poses of those in the photo had enhanced the mood, or made them look thin and elegant…  Or, if he had discussed how the lighting affected the overall image…  Or, had referenced the photo in any way, rather than simply including it as eye candy, without any specific reference and without credit.

    #9378
    IHF
    Participant

    Steph,

    Glad you came here to chime in.  You are always so upfront, honest, and intelligent, and always seem to keep your emotions at bay even when things get heated around here.  I just recently got into an argument/discussion with someone who, along with her friends, were publicly shaming “educating” a lay person (meaning not someone in the business at all of marketing or selling online)  for using another artist’s image as their personal facebook cover photo.  My argument was:  You want to take action?  Contact the artist quietly.  Let the artist handle it.  Dont speak for them.  You have no way of knowing if they allow for personal use, how they feel about personal use, the way they distribute, or how they chose to handle their own personal use infringement.  I then explained how I felt, and how I handle things, and explained how other photographers I know handle personal use without credit given or permission. She took this as me saying I was ignorant to copyright, and didn’t respect it like she does.  Or maybe she felt that as long as there are people out there allowing personal use and/or choosing to negotiate with people, she will never win this battle she fights so very diligently, everyday, to the point of extreme?  No, just that personal use infringement needs to be handled a little more sensitively for all who are involved.  I never got through, or received any additional online support from others for what I was trying to say, and this makes me feel I may just be alone in my thinking.  That type of behavior sets a horrible mood for any artist that wishes to communicate with the infringer for any sort of peaceful conclusion.  The woman who didn’t see the point I was trying to make then said “I don’t negotiate with theives”.

    I think all of us are in agreement that using other photographer’s work to advertise your photography business is not only illegal (unless full copyright was purchased on all the images, and I haven’t seen that be the case yet) but unethical as heck.  Pretty much the lowest thing any photographer could do.  I have no problem when they are called out and photographers work together to collect screen shots and get those images down and all the artists notified.  and people go off telling the tog how it is, But to treat the consumer/general public in the same manner as this?!  It shocked me.  but what shocked me more is I was the only one with my jaw dropped wide.

    I’d like to know your thoughts on this.  Educate me to your wise ways please 😉

    #9381
    IHF
    Participant

    “shocked”  not the right word, as I have seen this happen before when one of my images was blogged incorrectly.  I feel I could have created a great working relationship with her if I hadnt had interference.  Is she right, and I am naive for thinking I could have?

    #9383
    IHF
    Participant

    Oh, and if you have the time.  I would also love your thoughts (and I’m sure the OP would too) on a post in titled “Plagiarism”  with in this forum “let’s talk photography”

    Thank you in advance

    #9386
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Copyrights and fair use do confuse me a bit as well, because I have never myself thoroughly researched it. But in the most obvious, like others have stated, using any other photographer’s images on your own page, claiming they are part of your body of work (whether stated or not), especially when cropping or removing watermarks and replacing them with your own; using other photographs in any sort of advertising online or in print that you did not take yourself, unless there was a license purchased for their use for an educational manner (think, you’re hosting a posing workshop for models and you purchase licenses for images of other models posing).

    I’ve seen fauxtographers post ads on their page for boudoir photo sessions, complete with images taken by other photographers. Hello! You’re directly advertising your photography, so why would you use false advertising? That’s where it’s illegal.

    And yeah, all this copyright infringement stuff is just plain unethical. Any self-respecting photographer wouldn’t even dream of doing that. I do have several images of myself posted on my photography portfolio, which were shot by photographer friends. I have the images captioned with who shot them and that I did the editing and have posted them with permission from the photographer, as well as I have the original RAW files in my possession too. (In the case of some of my practice/fun shoots with a few friends, we each copy all the images from the CF cards to do our own editing etc.)

    #9392
    stef
    Participant

    On one hand, why should one particular industry not be allowed to use stock photos?

    On the other, using stock photos for a photography site is like false advertising. Kind of like a restaurant showing food from other restaurants. But is it any worse than hiring models to do a wedding shoot? That is common practice.

    So, I do consider the level of abuse when using other’s images… I wouldn’t care if someone used a stock photo of clouds as a background or other random things like a hot woman wearing a headset waiting for your call. As long as it wasn’t in a section marked “portfolio” or strongly implied that those shots are his, then I have no problem. After all, some images just don’t lend well to showing on a website. If I was a scientific or highly specialized photographer, I’d want to get stock photos to make my website look good for the things I couldn’t shoot myself. (Also, you don’t need the full copyright to reproduce someone else’s photos, you just need a license. A simple email “sure, go ahead and use my pic on your website” is probably good enough. My online client gallery has a someone else’s monitor calibration image as the first image of every gallery, and I got permission to reproduce it via email.)

    There are some images in the public domain that my business has used for composites with images we took. If I need a particular texture, I might look for a public domain version instead of going out and shooting some barn wood, for example. It’s fast and easy, legal, and I don’t have any issue with the ethics. I generally avoid creative commons for commercial stuff, since most of the licensing is non-commercial, and all of it requires credit. A surprising number of people put their images in the public domain, and it’s awesome … I liken it to tossing dollar bills out the window that only a few people ever pick up. I don’t feel bad at all picking one up and spending it now and then.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.